Get node schemas

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a bad type id returns an `error` entry inside the result rather than failing the whole call, which changes how an agent should handle mistakes and batch types together.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, when to call it, and how failures surface. The payoff statement ("exact rather than guessed") is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be spelled out, yet the description still flags the partial-error behavior that an output schema alone would not make obvious. For a single-parameter read tool this covers everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the `types` field already documents the array-of-type-ids contract with an example. The description only restates "one or more node types" and adds no syntax, batching, or limit guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the full property schema of one or more node types") and enumerates what the schema contains (keys, types, options, defaults, required flags, input/output ports). It implicitly separates itself from list_node_types by returning property-level detail rather than a type catalog, though it never names that sibling directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use it before writing a node's `data` so property names are exact rather than guessed" gives a concrete trigger condition tied to the downstream task. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative (list_node_types, get_dynamic_options), so the routing is clear but not fully disambiguated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.